Evil...

[JakeStarkey]

Simply require a reasonable fee for a hefty insurance bond to facilitate responsible use of firearms.

Meh. Unconstitutional.

But you wouldn't know about that.

You are merely a pimple on the ass of reason, and you just popped yourself.

Of course it is constitutional until SCOTUS says it isn't, and with a Democratic sweep around the corner because of the misdoings of your ilk, and SCOTUS won't say it is not.

You sound like you're high. Compose yourself and try to make sense, lol. It is not constitutional to require the people to pay the feds to exercise their constitutional rights. Owning and operating a car isn't a constitutional right. Owning and operating a firearm is. Sowwy.

You are describing your inability to focus. I said insurance, not a tax. The first is certainly legal, as you well know. Now pay attention, please.

It doesn't matter what it is. You can't require it for a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Get it?

Who says you can't? You? If such a law is passed, it is legal and enforceable until the courts say it is not. Get ready.

 

[Rambunctious]

Politicians that just can't do their jobs without stomping on the Bill Of Rights will one day find themselves in legal hot water. The people have spoken...Back the fuck off.

 

[koshergrl]

Meh. Unconstitutional.

But you wouldn't know about that.

You are merely a pimple on the ass of reason, and you just popped yourself.

Of course it is constitutional until SCOTUS says it isn't, and with a Democratic sweep around the corner because of the misdoings of your ilk, and SCOTUS won't say it is not.

You sound like you're high. Compose yourself and try to make sense, lol. It is not constitutional to require the people to pay the feds to exercise their constitutional rights. Owning and operating a car isn't a constitutional right. Owning and operating a firearm is. Sowwy.

You are describing your inability to focus. I said insurance, not a tax. The first is certainly legal, as you well know. Now pay attention, please.

It doesn't matter what it is. You can't require it for a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Get it?

Who says you can't? You? If such a law is passed, it is legal and enforceable until the courts say it is not. Get ready.

Fuck the courts if they're passing unconstitutional "laws". If they pass a law that violates the constitution, then it's not a true law, and we are under absolutely no obligation to obey it.

For that matter, the courts don't have the authority to create law. That's exclusively the role of Congress.

Get it?

 

[mdk]

The power to tax is the power to destroy. Fuck this tax.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are merely a pimple on the ass of reason, and you just popped yourself.

Of course it is constitutional until SCOTUS says it isn't, and with a Democratic sweep around the corner because of the misdoings of your ilk, and SCOTUS won't say it is not.

You sound like you're high. Compose yourself and try to make sense, lol. It is not constitutional to require the people to pay the feds to exercise their constitutional rights. Owning and operating a car isn't a constitutional right. Owning and operating a firearm is. Sowwy.

You are describing your inability to focus. I said insurance, not a tax. The first is certainly legal, as you well know. Now pay attention, please.

It doesn't matter what it is. You can't require it for a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Get it?

Who says you can't? You? If such a law is passed, it is legal and enforceable until the courts say it is not. Get ready.

Fuck the courts if they're passing unconstitutional "laws". If they pass a law that violates the constitution, then it's not a true law, and we are under absolutely no obligation to obey it.

Get it?

Sure thing, Daniella Shays.

 

[mdk]

Simply require a reasonable fee for a hefty insurance bond to facilitate responsible use of firearms.

Nonsense. You do realize that law pretty much states that only the wealthy can afford to own firearms, right? This 'role model' for the states is as foolish as it is frightening.

 

[koshergrl]

You sound like you're high. Compose yourself and try to make sense, lol. It is not constitutional to require the people to pay the feds to exercise their constitutional rights. Owning and operating a car isn't a constitutional right. Owning and operating a firearm is. Sowwy.

You are describing your inability to focus. I said insurance, not a tax. The first is certainly legal, as you well know. Now pay attention, please.

It doesn't matter what it is. You can't require it for a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Get it?

Who says you can't? You? If such a law is passed, it is legal and enforceable until the courts say it is not. Get ready.

Fuck the courts if they're passing unconstitutional "laws". If they pass a law that violates the constitution, then it's not a true law, and we are under absolutely no obligation to obey it.

Get it?

Sure thing, Daniella Shays.

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
"An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
"Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .
"A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
"An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
"Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

That's what your beloved scotus said.

dumbass cowardly sheep.

 

[koshergrl]

"One of the gravest mistakes made by Americans today is the mistake of assuming that because congress passed a piece of legislation and the president signed it, the violations of rights and liberties, the assaults on the American people under the guise of [national security] or other created crisis are justified or legal.
"You have guaranteed rights only so long as you defend them from encroachment by the government."

"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

 

[JakeStarkey]

And the law is legal until found not so.

No individual has the right to violate the law except in case of danger of life and limb to oneself or others until found unconstitutional.

 

[mdk]

And the law is legal until found not so.

No individual has the right to violate the law except in case of danger of life and limb to oneself or others until found unconstitutional.

What say you about this civil disobedience, Jake? This act was illegal. Just and right, but illegal nevertheless.

 

[Intolerant]

Welcome to my home. That locked door you kicked in was for your protecting not mine.

 

[koshergrl]

And the law is legal until found not so.

No individual has the right to violate the law except in case of danger of life and limb to oneself or others until found unconstitutional.

Do you not read? Says SCOTUS: "An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed."

Dumbass cowardly sheep.

 

[koshergrl]

Welcome to my home. That locked door you kicked in was for your protecting not mine.

 

[Rustic]

Guns are the crack of the partisan hacks. Courage is imaginary and thus the gun huggers love of the source of their guts, like a child with its blankee.

Not a bad idea actually, consider for a minute the state and government expenditures for gun related nonsense? The children still alive. We live in a dumb nation and having guns everywhere is more proof. Every day another unnecessary death - and the same dipshits cry over abortion. Pro life only counts if nothing is required of the phonies.

"Keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann. The National Rifle Association has fiercely attacked this study, but it remains valid despite its criticisms. The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house. Half of the murders were over arguments or romantic triangles. The study also found that the increased murder rate in gun-owning households was entirely due to an increase in gun homicides only, not any other murder method. It further found that gun-owning households saw an increased murder risk by family or intimate acquaintances, not by strangers or non-intimate acquaintances. The most straightforward explanation is that the presence of a gun increases the possibility that a normal family fight or drinking binge will become deadly. No other explanation fits the above facts." A gun in the home increases personal safety

"In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word 'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state."

More guns = less crime

 

[Rustic]

Simply require a reasonable fee for a hefty insurance bond to facilitate responsible use of firearms.

= legalized extortion on a right.... Control freak

 

[Rustic]

Actually, gun owners should just be made to carry liability insurance.

And yeah, the tax is good too.

Most of us do have liability insurance.

It should be required.

Seriously, idiots who can't even go to the grocery store without their lil lollypop on their hip are just itchin' for a chance to blow someone away. They plan to shoot so they should plan to pay.

People who are shot/killed have families. They have parents, spouses and kids. You shoot someone - you owe should owe a pile of bucks to those people.

BTW, its always fun to poke at nutters like the OP and I was semi-kidding about the $1000 tax. I own a pile of guns and hate to think what I would have to pay. But, I don't swagger around, looking for a chance to shoot at someone.

But, a tax like that could be set aside to fund college, medical costs, etc for the families the nutters blow away.

You want the "right" to shoot at people? You can pay for it.

Orwellian Nutter

 

[Rustic]

Anyone for this needs to burn in hell...

$1,000 Gun Tax Pushed as “Role Model” for States

NYC currently charges almost $350 for the 'right' to obtain a permit....add $90 for fingerprinting....plus several hundred, I believe, every two years for renewal of the license.

One of the backward southern states (Miss?) governor just signed a bill into law making it legal for anyone to carry anything, any time, any place, no training required. Stupid.

A right is a right... Shall not be infringed...
Now go hide. Lol

 

[Rustic]

Gun violence is a non-issue in this country, we have bigger fish to fry... The pussy whipped anti-gun crowd needs to grow a backbone.

 

[Sherry]

This is clearly a racist ploy designed by the privileged white class to keep guns out of the reach of minorities who suffer from income inequality. It's all good though...they can use their Obama phones to dial 911 and keep their fingers crossed that they'll arrive before their property is stolen and/or they're raped/murdered.

 

[Rustic]

This women needs an Obama gun..,